Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm not sure it's ever explicitly explained why Schultz brings Django to Candieland in the first place?

Surely they were aware that their plan is greatly jeopardized by bringing Django along: not only does he have to temper his emotions around Broomhilda, they are also counting on Broomhilda being able to do the same with no prior warning.

Django has already fulfilled his purpose in proving to Candie that Schultz is interested in Mandigo fighting at the Cleopatra Club, which is how Schultz obtained his entry to Candieland. This proves Django was no longer needed to convince Candie.

Schultz was already very capable of handling himself, being a bounty hunter.

enter image description here

And as for 'back-up', surely the last possible thing the pair wanted was a Gunfight, so why anticipate one? It only happens due to the failure of their original plan.

enter image description here

And as for being able to positively identify Broomhilda, the dialogue already mentions that the chances of there being two African slaves named 'Broomhilda' are almost zero.

As far as I can see, the only thing that would jeopardize the plan is Django's presence, so why does he come along?

Edit: No 'because it makes the plot better' answers, please ;P. I know its a great movie, but I'm looking to see if this is explained within the movie.

share|improve this question
    
not entirely sure but Candie wants both of them to accompany him to come to that place. –  Dredd Jan 8 at 15:28
    
I don't think so, Candie is somewhat troubled at Schultz's insistence that the two come as partners: "You do the Bill foldin' and he does the eye ballin', is that correct?" –  John Smith Optional Jan 8 at 15:30
3  
Are those pictures really necessary to provide any additional information or context or are they merely "beautifying" the question? –  Napoleon Wilson Jan 8 at 17:54
1  
Well, they stretch the question with completely irrelevant stuff. Your explanations have already reminded the reader, seeing a guy shoot a gun and some guys lying around, well. But nevermind, I'll not edit them out anyway if you deem them necessary. I certainly don't want to rob the question of its "intrigue" either. ;-) –  Napoleon Wilson Jan 8 at 20:02
2  
@JohnSmithOptional: Merely a suggestion; but the readability of the question would increase dramatically if those images are removed. And you can always use proper formatting to break up large blocks of text. –  KeyBrd Basher Jan 9 at 5:35

3 Answers 3

I don't think it was ever even considered that Schultz goes there alone, so it's not an addressed issue. The rest of my answer is speculative.

First, it's Django's wife, so it is a matter of ego, and it is emotionally very important that he comes to her rescue. Given his temper, I have hard time imagining him waiting for Schultz to rescue her, even if it would be wise (which it probably would be).

Imagine, for a moment, the scenario in which Django waits somewhere while Schultz goes to Candieland. I think we can say, with absolute certainty, that he'd do something stupid, like go "see what's going on or if his help is needed". In a way, maybe it was reasonable for Schultz to want to keep an eye on Django.

Second, as you said, "the last possible thing the pair wanted was a gunfight", but -- and I quote another movie -- want doesn't get, so it is not unreasonable to anticipate a fight. However, you are right that Django greatly increased the possibility of a fight. And let's not forget that the fight was actually incited by Schultz, not by Django, so he too is a bit of a loose cannon (and most likely aware of that).

Third, this is South in the time of slavery. Separating Django from Schultz for a few days is risky, as there is a hunting season on masterless black men there. No formal papers would help him if a group of gun-happy white men came along his way, and his aforementioned temper wouldn't help diffuse the potential situation. So, leaving Django somewhere would impose a risk of Schultz losing an associate (and, I dare say, a friend), while getting his wife instead.

You are somewhat wrong about them "also counting on Broomhilde being able to do the same with no prior warning". That warning came in the room scene, where Schultz first to met her, and (tried to) prepare her for a meeting with Django.

It was actually a good plan, which would go all right if Candie didn't have Stephen who noticed Broomhilda's emotions. Who there, other than a very observant black men eager to please his master, would pay attention to emotions of a black woman?

share|improve this answer
1  
Good answer +1. Although: it is still Django's fault the ruse is revealed, or more specifically Django's reaction to Broomhilde being stripped, he is unable to control himself emotionally. Also, I think there would have been plausible hospitable places they could have left Django: Sheriff 'Snowy Snow' for one seems friendly enough to Django, for one. And I'm not sure about your speculation that we can say with any certainty, that Django would do something reckless.. he's done exactly as instructed by Schultz prior to this, as his mentor. Good attempt, though... :) –  John Smith Optional Jan 8 at 19:03
1  
Maybe I misremember: wasn't it Broomhilde's reactions that made Stephen suspicious, after which it was easy to see through Schultz' and Django's game? Regardless of who revealed them, Schultz was the one to start a gunfight (discussed in this answer). As for Django doing something reckless, yes, my statement is a stretch, but I was referring to what usually happens in the movies. A character cannot have a smooth ride, so if their plan is good, they have to do something stupid. A movie director can only choose which stupid thing is more plausible. –  Vedran Šego Jan 8 at 20:07
    
Well yes, of course Schultz shot first, that was never under any question, this isn't A New Hope! by saying it 'was Django's fault the ruse is revealed', I'm referring to the fact it was his presence which ultimately exposed their true intentions. I think it was ultimately Djangos composure around Broomhilda (or vice-versa, doesnt matter) that exposed them, wouldn't you agree? –  John Smith Optional Jan 8 at 20:11
    
It's been a while since I've watched it. I think it was her looks towards Django that made Stephen very suspicious at first, but this was probably also helped by the scene when they take her out of the cage, right after Schultz and Django arrived to Candie's house. And yes, Django's obviously forced composure did attribute to Stephen's conclusion. –  Vedran Šego Jan 8 at 20:16
    
Either way, I think we can both agree that if Django wasn't there, Steven wouldn't have had anything to base his suspicions on.... –  John Smith Optional Jan 8 at 20:21

I'll take a different tack and state what may be obvious: It's a conceit of the narrative that Django goes along. He's the protagonist of the film, so his involvement in all aspects of that narrative becomes necessary to keep him in that role.

The film makes it abundantly clear that Candie's primary interest was in Mandingo fighting slaves. The remainder of his slaves (with the exception of his majordomo Joseph) serve little purpose to him and thus the narrative. This could be extended to Broomhilda, who we see is actually locked in a punishment sweatbox when Django and Schulz arrive at the Candieland plantation.

There is no reason for Django to go, as Schulz could have easily gone to the plantation seeking a female German-speaking slave. Since she was a "problem" for Candie's household and since his interests lied elsewhere (slaves bred for combat) it takes an exceptional stretch of the imagination to believe that he wouldn't not have sold her without much bargaining simply to be rid of her.

As for Django's not being "safe" without Schulz: There was an extensive slavery abolition movement in the US which peaked just prior to the Civil War. While fugitive slave raids did occur, they were rare in the far North and they were illegal in Canada. It would have been very easy in an era where identification documentation did not require photos for Schulz to take Django to a state or country where he would be beyond reach of any group seeking to enslave him again.

He could have then proceeded to Candieland, purchased Broomhilda, granted her freedom and then traveled with her to where Django was waiting for them. This plan would have placed none of them in danger (Why would Candie suspect an ulterior motive or even care?) it would have allowed them to save money as Candie would have rid himself of a "troubled slave" for a relative pittance and it might have made Django even more beholding to Schulz as he would have helped him free his beloved wife.

Instead, using rather convoluted plot logic, the film requires that the protagonist (Django) risk his life, it ends Schulz's life when he decides to murder Candie and then not provide an adequate plan which would have allowed Django and Broomhilda any method to escape. And finally, it risked Broomhilda's life, as it would have simply been wiser to kill her and Django after Candie's murder if for no other reason than to make them examples for the other slaves who might have been considering similar actions.

While this is not a plot hole (it is consistent with the internal "logic" of narrative) it is certainly an unrealistic plot contrivance which is so glaring that it throws a thinking filmgoer out the sense of disbelief they require to make a film's fictional narrative seem to be realistic."

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Mistah Mix. I was hoping somewhere in the film there was a reason why Django had to go, because I agree with you entirely (and I suspect Vedran Šego does also) in your evaluation. It just seemed unnecessary, and primed for one of those "how it should have ended" parody videos. I do Hate answers that are just 'because that's what happens in the plot' but in your case I'm willing to make an exception because I think you're totally right. –  John Smith Optional Jan 11 at 16:16
    
Apart from Django's emotional reasons, I do agree with this. Schultz, when first explaining his plan to Django, says that Candie would be suspicious if he just went to buy Broomhilda, and this is the explanation for his overly complex plan. However, I am not that convinced that Candie would be suspicious (or even care), had it be presented, as Mistah Mix said, "I want a German speaking slave" instead of "I want this guy's wife". Btw, I am not so sure about the abolition part (in the movie universe). See how white people look at Django on the horse, or anywhere he goes with Schultz. –  Vedran Šego Jan 12 at 20:14
    
Those are White Americans in the slave-holding South. The abolition movement was in the Northern US and surprisingly played a much smaller role in the film than it did in reality. Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling book in the US with the exception of the Bible prior to the Civil War and it was used by the abolitionist movement to combat slavery. –  Mistah Mix Jan 12 at 23:17

Actually, it was explained as to why Django went to Candieland. Shultz was the money man in their little plan, while Django was the one who had to identify the fighter they intended to purchase. Shultz explained this beforehand. In their plan, Django was to play the part of the experienced and expert fighter, and thus the best judge of the fighter they were to purchase.

Yes, Django proved that Shultz had an interest in purchasing a Mandigo fighter, but that was all. In that same scene, both Shultz and Django proved that Shultz had the money while Django was going to decide who the money would be spent on. Since the fighter was at Candieland, Django had to go along to see for himself if the fighter was indeed the third best, and worth the $12k.

It is possible that they could have devised a different plan, where Shultz would not need Django at all, but it would have been far more difficult to pull off. It would have been very easy for Shultz to make a mistake and prove he was no judge of fighters. Moreover, with Django there, he was free to play a much more convincing part as just a rich and bored man looking to spend his money on more exciting matters.

Neither of them was counting on Stephen.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for the answer Bon, but I can't help but think you're missing the point of the question. We're aware of the alibi Schultz and Django created, we're discussing the details of their actual plan, not the way they present themselves to Candie. 'but it would have been far more difficult to pull off'...why do you believe it would have been so? 'easy for Shultz to make a mistake and prove he was no judge of fighters' I thought Schultz wasn't supposed to be a judge of fighters? If I were Candie, I'd have been much happier to take a 'gullible' Schultz without his intimidating bodyguard... –  John Smith Optional Jan 11 at 13:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.